Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I understand this opinion. Your assertion that DFSG-4 does not protect > file names logically follows from it. The problem is, I do not share > this opinion. This does not make neither of us a person with an > unhealthy mind; however, there must be some way to resolve this in a > normal way.
First, DFSG doesn't protect anything; what it does, is say that certain kinds of "protection" by copyright licenses do not impact the freeness of the software. It allows that a license might require renaming of the work (or alteration of version number) in order to achieve such protection, without impacting freeness. But it does not say that any mechanism whatsoever for achieving that "renaming of the work" is ok. For example a license might say "You may modify this, but only if you change the name. You must give clear indication of the changed name in skywriting over Manhattan." That's not free, even though the alleged purpose is merely to make the name change suitably public and visible. Now, you treat this is as if there are merely differing interpretations of DFSG-4. But there are not. The only interpretors of DFSG-4 are the Debian Project. Nobody else. We don't make any kind of promise that if you meet the DFSG, we will distribute your software; rather, we publish these guides, and then use them in making determinations about what is free. But we make the determination. DFSG is not a legal text, it's an internal guide for the Debian project. We don't neet to convince you that we have the right interpretation of DFSG-4. I'm sorry that you find it confusing, but I hope the present discussion has helped to clarify it for you.
